Grimason v Cates

Grimason v Cates

The High Court held that service of the forfeiture proceedings was valid as the appellant had given the flat as her address for service and had not indicated otherwise. The judge was entitled to determine the issue of residence on the evidence before him. The requirements of CPR 39.3(5) applied by analogy, and the appellant had not acted promptly, had no good reason for not attending, and had no reasonable prospect of success. The proportionality argument under Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR was rejected as the statutory scheme provided adequate protection and the outcome was not disproportionate.

Parties
Appellant/claimant/respondent: Grace Winifred Grimason; Respondent/defendant/appellant: Jonathan Cates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (forfeiture of Lease, Possession Order, Damages) / Appeal From County Court to High Court; Applications to Set Aside Possession Order and Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Service of Proceedings, Relief From Forfeiture, Proportionality, Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Possession Orders
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Human Rights Forfeiture of Lease Service of Proceedings Relief From Forfeiture Proportionality Summary Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Winifred Grimason

Appellant/claimant/respondent

Jonathan Cates

Respondent/defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (forfeiture of Lease, Possession Order, Damages) / Appeal From County Court to High Court; Applications to Set Aside Possession Order and Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of forfeiture proceedings was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether the possession order should be set aside for failure of service
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of CPR 39.3(5) or CPR 3.1 apply to the application to set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that service of the forfeiture proceedings was valid as the appellant had given the flat as her address for service and had not indicated otherwise. The judge was entitled to determine the issue of residence on the evidence before him. The requirements of CPR 39.3(5) applied by analogy, and the appellant had not acted promptly, had no good reason for not attending, and had no reasonable prospect of success. The proportionality argument under Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR was rejected as the statutory scheme provided adequate protection and the outcome was not disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs in the sum of £4,212.60 inclusive of VAT